I have spent last few days learning VT and RVT, and I have finally made it all work, blending, streaming, displacement, all works by the book.
Only problem that i have is quality of the textures. I am not able to get visual representation of the textures more than 2048, and I am wondering if it is even posible to do.
My goal is to show full res(4k-8k)in close range. Adjusting RVT do nothing, it’s capped, and I can only reduce the quality.
Any thought? I am using 3060 12gb and have been testing on a simple landscape, with just one layer.
Also I am interested only in rendering, not real time performance. And the only reason i have decided to use RVT is ability to blend assets into the landscape.
If you want more chunks/tiles, enable adaptive page table and you can use higher numbers in the sliders above. It comes at a performance cost as the indexing is more-complicated, but that wouldn’t matter here.
Or you can stack landscape/RVT stacks side by side if you want to make more ‘chunks’. Use the same materials on each and it would likely be seamless. If you did a 2x2 vs your singular(?) landscape you are using now, you can effectively double the resolution of whatever your RVTs put out. Basically brute-forcing it down this path, but it is scalable…
To be clear. Nothing wrong with ypu or the pc - everything wrong with Epic.
If this is for a static render, why bother with all the VT and other intricacies?
If this is for a game, perhaps you should work on a slightly more hump packing GFX - and keep a 1060 rig around to test the low scalability stuff that most players would see.
Additionally - why is more resolutiong than 2k needed on a landscape when 256 is probably about as much as you need for the avarage game?
If you dont mind, share a screencap or 2 of what you got.
Before and after the fix mentioned above would also likely be great to fully understand what is going on.
If the RTV itself doesnt offer enough resolution the most likely problem is that you picked a landacape size thats just too big.
A somewhat happy medium would be to go in a 1px to 1m scale like the heightmap does, so a 2k texture means a mac of 2k^2km map.
Going smaller would increase your ability to blend things somewhat.
Packing 2k into the smallest landscape size becomes completely useless or just about…
I’d play with that before playing with the actual texture sizes…
Because they do take up memory and GFX processing.
Having farted around with the RVT/landscape setup for a while, and whilst I am not a pro, my 2cents…
For a small landscape, something around 4km square (2k heightmap) the density of the RVT is sufficient. You can paint PBR data into the RVT and read it out at an ‘acceptable’ level of definition.
For something that I am working on where the areal value is more along 100’s of km square, you would be best served with painting in alpha information, and then rendering layer information (PBR) in the heightmesh, or subsequent target that consumes the RVT. With the alpha in the primary (render-to), the secondary (the read-out) can have it’s own UVs so you can scale what-you-actually-render to anything you want, bypassing the limitations of what can be painted-into the RVT.
Right, without having to increase the texture size, which will probably tend to overflow the pool.
Though on 12GB if it’s for personal use you will likely be fine even with the maximum 8k size…
